Jump to content

Limitation of piracy?


sroberson

Recommended Posts

Hello all!

Alright, to get things started, this is a hypothetical scenario. I am not bringing to light any questionable acts I have carried out regarding piracy nor any future acts I may or may not commit, it was just an interesting thought I had about the limitations to piracy and was wondering if there were any opposing opinions. So here it goes...

Do you think the age of the product that is 'pirated' should be taken into consideration?

I recently brought up the topic that I had a digital copy of StarFox Adventures (I have since bought the physical copy, so I am in the legal side) and that by saying that, I basically publicly announced that I had pirated the media. I feel a little conflicted on the matter about me being labeled a 'pirate' by downloading something like StarFox Adventures, seeing as the originator (Nintendo) no longer produces the physical copies of the disk nor distribute it digitally. No matter my means of attaining the media in question, the originating compnay still isn't making money because the producers are no longer creating the media. The only people that hurts from my pirating of media that is no longer produced is the used gamestore market, and we know they aren't staying in business selling old games (and if they are, its because there is a huge demand from the collectors who want the physical copy anyways).

To use another example just so it won't be wrapped around StarFox. There was a band in the mid-late 80s named Nitro. They were a gaudy over the top hair metal band and the label/record producers no longer create brand new media for the since broken up band. The only media that can be bought is used (for approximately $100 last time I saw) and even then its hard to find - I am unaware of the existence of a digital copy that I can buy.

-Am I in the wrong for downloading a copy of some media that is no longer produced?

-Should there be a limitation to what is considered piracy? Or is the establishment of piracy being considered any stolen intellectual property at any time a way of preventing a slippery slope from occuring that brings into light even more complicated scenarios?

-I guess another question is, why would the original intellectual property owner be concerned with prosecuting theft of media that they no longer make money off of (wouldn't it be like free advertising for them to get a hold of their old products?)

Happy discussing!

:)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I used to download all sorts of old PC games, and some of the best hardcore punk I've ever heard comes from a band whose albums are no longer in print. I have to say that age SHOULD be taken into consideration. At a business standpoint, there's no point in pressing charges against somebody for a product that's no longer being profited off of.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have a few views on different scenerio's where I feel no guilt in pirateing, or tonnes of guilt.

An example of no guilt, I recently downloaded Jean Jacquess Perrey's "moog mig mag moog" Album, the thing is ike... 40 years old, I see no other method of attaining this collection of songs. When that happens I feel no guilt in downloading something. If I could give the dude some money, sure I'd go ahead and do it, but I know of no method right now.

For games I believe that as long as the local gamestop, or other big game selling company isn't holding any games for the system, thats a time where you can feel no guilt for downloading the game, I do, however, try and get my hands on a physical copy of the game if I actually enjoy playing it. If you have a local old school game shop, I recomend buying your games there instead of downloading, chances are the owners going through a lot of hard work to get those games, and owning a physical copy is always cooler.

I know of a few people who blame piracy for their success, particularily indee devolopers, a few blame it for thier downfall. Personally, I think if your indie product is worth buying, piracy helps it out, if it's not worth buying it can crush the product as it gives people a chance to try it out before buying it, and spread the word. Pirateing games from indie developers is a dick move, and I believe a lot of people feel the same way and thus after pirateing a game, and that's why if it's actually good, alot of people will buy the game afterwards anyways out of guilt. Maybe they didn't have enough money when they first downloaded it, there could be a lot of reason's, and maybe in the end they won't pay for the game, but at the same time they aren't not gonna spread the word over the internet about how awesome the game/music/whatever is, and once the more people hear about you, the faster even mooore people here about you!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When you buy/sell used games at GameStop.....

GameStop Executives:

scrooge_mcduck-547x400.jpg

The used game industry as a whole (including fair-priced "small stores" that actually still carry older systems and games):

drowning.jpg

The people who actually made the game (and therefore deserve your money):

conan-i-am-disappoint1.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Currently I live below the federal poverty line (translation: I am beyond poor as far as first world standards are concerned) so buying everything under the sun isn't an option, let alone when something is so rare it's expensive or out of print. None the less I do so when I can, so if somebody doesn't give me an opportunity to even give them my money when I AM able, then I don't feel a whole lot of guilt in the concept of torrenting it. I hate it when companies argue that they might in some distant future re-release or otherwise reuse a property that they haven't touched for 10+ years as an excuse to prevent people from sharing it, because it basically blocks out an entire generation of people from benefiting from it at all, whether paying for it or otherwise. The length of copyright used to be much shorter most likely for such reasons until Disney started lobbying to get the length increased every time Steamboat Willie and all the other early Mickey Mouse stuff were about to fall into public domain. :P

Also, having a digital copy of SFA does not imply theft alone, you could have ripped a digital copy from a disc you own. I've done that with a fair bit of things that I have.

But the short of it is no, I don't find anything horribly wrong with grabbing media that is no longer produced, copyrights were never originally meant to be used this way and even if they were it'd still be slimy to do so IMHO.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I will admit, I did download the digital copy of SFA without actually owning the physical copy. I reiterate just for my safety, I do have the physical copy now. I just can't understand the horrible outcome of downloading it even without buying the physical copy - unless we consider the 'ethical' reasons behind it...but the laws behind piracy are most likely related to economic prosperity for companies as opposed to morality.

To me, arguing that they may re-release the game sometime in the future is a way of promoting a theoretical demand on a limited supply. It might have worked before the internet got as big as it is now, but trying to spoof people into thinking that they will have to wait and nervously anticipate buying the game again is a bad business model when they can spend a couple hours online and download it for free. If its as easy to attain digital media legally as it is illegally, then piracy wouldn't be a problem.

I look to another source of pirated media for an example, and a popular one too. Emulators. There are many websites out there that freely disseminate the emulating software and the games through FTP (AKA, FTP = more acceptable legally as opposed to torrenting). Is this a case where there is a limitation to what is considered piracy? Or does the government/corporations simply not care about it? Where is their line in the sand?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I look to another source of pirated media for an example, and a popular one too. Emulators. There are many websites out there that freely disseminate the emulating software and the games through FTP (AKA, FTP = more acceptable legally as opposed to torrenting). Is this a case where there is a limitation to what is considered piracy? Or does the government/corporations simply not care about it? Where is their line in the sand?

FTP isn't any more acceptable legally than torrenting, it's just harder to track down every dinky FTP server dishing out stuff illegally. Torrent files get passed around like syphilis - FTP server addresses not so much. Although the real reason (that I can gather) that many emulation sites don't get blammed is for a few reasons:

1) The aforementioned about FTP servers.

2) Many also decentralize their files by having copies up on just about every file locker / storage site imaginable.

3) Many emulator / ROM sites are overseas and legally hard to act against, especially in light of the first two points because many never host the files themselves.

4) Many of the companies that own these games are either defunct or don't care due to the age of the games. Many seem in the habit of making enhanced remakes that aren't 100% threatened by the existence of the old games anyway because they have added value that people pay for.

The line in the sand is usually any copies of games for the current gen systems, or in the case of PC games I guess it'd have to have been released in the last couple of years for them to care a whole lot, but every company is different.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ugh, after writing this damn message three times now before I accidentally click of a stupid link thus losing my message!!!!....

I feel that FTP is a more acceptable means of transferring files legally than torrenting which has the taboo of being attached to the 'pirating' deal. With FTP transfers the accountability for spreading the material falls on the party that owns the site and is easy to track down through contacting the ISP. Torrenting spreads the accountability across all kinds of state and country lines thus obscuring those who receive the prosecution (and also largely absolves the hosts of the websites due to 'lack of knowledge'). While FTP could be used to give pirated material, I should as heck wouldn't give my ISP any accurate information about myself if I wanted to do that.

I didn't consider the idea that the emulation sites could be over-seas. I wonder if this new BS internet censorship bill that is being rammed down our throats again will block websites like dope-roms, emuparadise, etc. Small rant here: but I am personally getting tired of retarded politicians trying to shove the same bills through the system with a different name in the hopes that citizens won't notice what's going on while they are distracted by some other ridiculous social upheaval. Speaking of which, I need to write a status on Facebook about how I am ditching them since they are dumb enough to support internet censorship at all. I guess lucky us, politicians are too ignorant and clouded by political clout to pass anything that effectively censors anything. VPN access to a point in Europe and access their DNS servers. Problem solved.

I wonder if the reason maybe game companies haven't totally jumped on the super anti-pirating crusade is because of the general ignorance of how to actually pirate platform games and get them to work. Not everyone knows how to use emulators nor what they even are. Not everyone is brave enough to install hardware or software mods on their platform games to play stolen images of the games they want to play, or even know that its possible to hardware/software mod their consoles. Its a lot easier to steal a copy of a CD than it is to steal a 'gcm' image of SFA and then mod out a Wii to get it to actually play (I discount the ability to run the emulator for SFA...since it requires some ridiculous computer hardware that I won't even consider). But then, I am always struck by the notion that record company moguls who are crying the loudest about piracy are also the ones, as Falco put it, swimming in money:

scrooge_mcduck-547x400.jpg

Example: Rupert Murdoch, one of the biggest supporters of SOPA, owns more wealth than some surprisingly large percentage of Americans put together (I really wish I had the exact number but I couldn't find it. If I recall it was in the area of bottom 20% of society put together, he is worth approximately $8.6 Billion). And we are expected to feel bad about pirating...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh god, don't even start me on a rant about Rupert Murdoch...

I feel that FTP is a more acceptable means of transferring files legally than torrenting which has the taboo of being attached to the 'pirating' deal. With FTP transfers the accountability for spreading the material falls on the party that owns the site and is easy to track down through contacting the ISP. Torrenting spreads the accountability across all kinds of state and country lines thus obscuring those who receive the prosecution (and also largely absolves the hosts of the websites due to 'lack of knowledge'). While FTP could be used to give pirated material, I should as heck wouldn't give my ISP any accurate information about myself if I wanted to do that.

I would just be careful to distinguish between legally and morally acceptable versus easier / harder to prosecute or lay blame for. They're not the same thing.

I wonder if the reason maybe game companies haven't totally jumped on the super anti-pirating crusade is because of the general ignorance of how to actually pirate platform games and get them to work. Not everyone knows how to use emulators nor what they even are. Not everyone is brave enough to install hardware or software mods on their platform games to play stolen images of the games they want to play, or even know that its possible to hardware/software mod their consoles. Its a lot easier to steal a copy of a CD than it is to steal a 'gcm' image of SFA and then mod out a Wii to get it to actually play (I discount the ability to run the emulator for SFA...since it requires some ridiculous computer hardware that I won't even consider).

I'd certainly guess that to be a major factor, I believe that's part of why so many games stay exclusive to consoles - dodge the PC piracy bullet altogether.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it is interesting to consider the music industry's attack on Napster in this topic. When Napster came out, everyone (who was swimming in music money, that is) was screaming that it would destroy the music industry. That it was the dawn of the era of piracy and no one would ever buy music again....EVERYONE would pirate because it was now available, right? Well what happened??.....

Limewire still exists. Torrents became popular. Downloading music for free is more popular than it ever was. Yet the music industry is going strong. Why? STEVE JOBS AND APPLE. Some genius came along and said...."Wait." The reasons why Napster was so popular were because it makes available the greatest library of music the world has ever seen at your fingertips. Sure, some people were using it because it was free. But TONS of people were using it because it was easy and convenient. They didn't have to buy an entire album for that one single they had stuck in their head. They could get a tune from 1987 in the same place as a freshly released tune. They could get ANYTHING. They didn't need their old record or tape player. They didn't need specialized equipment for the media. They just needed a computer and a knowledge of what song they wanted to listen to. There, in fact, was a huge potential market for more easily accessible music. Enter iTunes. Now, iTunes is the biggest music store in the world. And it all stemmed from Napster. Think about it. iTunes is basically just a version of Napster with accounts attached. The rest is history. iTunes is through the roof. Major pop recording artists are stronger than ever. I can't remember the last time there was a single artist as popular or as well-known as Lady Gaga and Justin Bieber. Lars and Metallica certainly didn't accomplish that feat, with or without people stealing their music.

The same will happen with games. It is already starting to some extent. You are seeing companies beginning to offer "cloud services" where you pay some sort of monthly fee and get digital access to games. People STILL want to play old games. They are gonna find a way to play old games, just like they found a way to listen to their favorite music. Someday another genius will come along and look at video games the same way Steve Jobs looked at music. He'll find a way to give people access to the games they want to play while still appeasing copyright holders and letting all those greedy executive bastards wallow in their wealth (which now has come to include POTENTIAL income). God forbid someone takes away their pretend money. As far as morally, I think all those game companies can go stick it up right up their asses. Games are meant to be played. People want to play games. Either make all games easily available or STFU!

Note: I know there are fundamental differences between the music industry and game industry...but I don't think it is too much of a stretch to think that some sort of iGames store would be every bit as popular, successful, and functional as iTunes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Fana,

Yeah I failed to express my thoughts on FTP vs. Torrenting very accurately. I apologize. Yes, both are legal means of file transfer, but the ability to pin point pirating offenders using FTP services is a lot easier than torrenting services - which is why inarticulately explained that FTP services are most likely used by legal services, and torrenting is a popular means of file transfer for pirates. I feel that cleared that up :) ...maybe haha

I tend to avoid pirating PC software too much because its a biiit too easy for some Russian script kiddie to pull apart the software and repackage it with some trojan or bot net infection. As in WAAAY TOO easy. I don't even know how to write viruses or even complex programs but I could get away with it.

@Falco

I was actually on the news when the SOPA bill was going around and I argued that the answer isn't to censor the internet because media moguls don't like pirating, the answer is for the media moguls to change their ancient and ineffective business models. I'm not one to suggest Steve Jobs was a decent human being at all, but I guess he did do that much right by starting iTunes and the digital music industry. I'm glad you made a shout out to Lars! I believe any mention of Napster should involve saying 'Lars Ulrich' at least once nearby.

Are you referring to things like Steam when you mention 'cloud services'? If so, I can't really say I agree with the term 'cloud services' for them (I only assume that's what you mean since we are on the topic of revolutionizing business models to attract sales). There are however other companies that host the computing resources and games on their own machines and you log into a sort of video feed (I am unaware of what kind of protocol it uses) and play the game on their computers. These guys would be considered 'cloud gaming' in my opinion, though I suppose by allowing consoles to connect to the internet they are already sort of 'cloud' based. I think some companies are attempting to wrestle with this idea of modifying the way they sell games by selling them online through the console. Wii is kind of doing it, PS3 is too, XBox not so sure...It will be interesting to see what happens when that kind of media goes largely digital - and the dangers of network and system security for Nintendo/Sony/Microsoft as they handle more credit card information and transactions with people's accounts (as we know Sony really dropped the ball on that one a while back)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, I was talking about companies like OnLive, or more rather specifically OnLive but assuming more companies will follow:

Article:

http://www.padgadget...e-cloud-gaming/

HomePage:

http://www.onlive.com/service

I think obviously a digital alternative is the answer. Once someone comes along with a model that allows all games from all eras to be played on a singular hub/central device using common modern-era equipment, gaming will revolutionize just like music did.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ah ok, I couldn't think of the name of the service that hosted games - OnLive. The first time I was shown that I thought it was the coolest idea ever. Don't you theoretically own the copy of the game that they are hosting? Or is it really based on 'rental'?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ah ok, I couldn't think of the name of the service that hosted games - OnLive. The first time I was shown that I thought it was the coolest idea ever. Don't you theoretically own the copy of the game that they are hosting? Or is it really based on 'rental'?

The thing I don't like about OnLive is that they could theoretically pull the plug at any time. For whatever reason, your games could be gone because you're paying for a license to play the game, and not the game itself. I believe that they had a policy that the license was only good for three years; after three the game gets deleted from your library [after paying full retail price for it, mind you.] This, as well as future collectability, is why I am against total digital distribution. It may be convenient now, but when you realize what that EULA you didn't read said, it will be too late. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The thing I don't like about OnLive is that they could theoretically pull the plug at any time. For whatever reason, your games could be gone because you're paying for a license to play the game, and not the game itself.

I think that's why they've come up with things like UltraViolet - to address that issue: http://www.uvvu.com/

Granted, it's movies and TV shows, but it's still a step in the right direction.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have no interest in joining OnLive. Imo, that particular company will fail and all the games people "bought" will be gone. They do have a rental vs. purchase program so if you only used it for rentals, it would be much better service.

I do think, however, that this foreshadows the direction that video game distribution is headed. Licensing. Sooner or later you will simply pay for a license to play a game for a certain period of time and that game will be available to you from several different sources. When the license runs up, if you want to continue "owning" the product, you buy another license.

I, too, don't like the collecting implications, but I'd much rather see Legend of Zelda 64 playable digitally on the Wii Zu34 than have to try and keep my 64 working for another 20-30 years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

Well, in recent news, Judge Gary Brown has ruled that IP addresses do not equate to a person. As a result, evidence stating that an IP address can be linked to an individual is not sufficient evidence.

According to http://torrentfreak.com/judge-an-ip-address-doesnt-identify-a-person-120503/

One of the arguments discussed in detail is the copyright holders’ claim that IP-addresses can identify the alleged infringers. According to Judge Brown this claim is very weak.

“The assumption that the person who pays for Internet access at a given location is the same individual who allegedly downloaded a single...film is tenuous, and one that has grown more so over time,†he writes.

“An IP address provides only the location at which one of any number of computer devices may be deployed, much like a telephone number can be used for any number of telephones.â€

“Thus, it is no more likely that the subscriber to an IP address carried out a particular computer function – here the purported illegal downloading of a single...film – than to say an individual who pays the telephone bill made a specific telephone call.â€

The Judge continues by arguing that having an IP-address as evidence is even weaker than a telephone number, as the majority of US homes have a wireless network nowadays. This means that many people, including complete strangers if one has an open network, can use the same IP-address simultaneously.

“While a decade ago, home wireless networks were nearly non-existent, 61% of US homes now have wireless access. As a result, a single IP address usually supports multiple computer devices – which unlike traditional telephones can be operated simultaneously by different individuals,†Judge Brown writes.

This is the whole ruling:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/92229567/Judge-Gary-Brown-IP-Address-Ruling

Based on what Falco said, I can see practically all media forms being concentrated into digital format, and made legal similar to the whole iTunes thing, in order to control and prevent acts of piracy. In the meanime, the rest of us who normally get this stuff legally are going to have to deal with these extreme measures. In terms of video games....>>> you can forget the customer's power to bargain. Yep, one set price that will only go down with the passage of time. (Because you can't trade in "used" downloaded content to your local video game supplier, who also no longer exists because of a centralized media content provider which dominates the industry...oh wait, that's a monopoly, the government wouldn't let something like that happen, RIGHT? /sarcasm)

What looks to be like a victory in the short term, will only completely change the landscape of the media providing industry, and completely screw over law-abiding citizens who have always recieved their content through legal means....

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...